People talk of techniques as if they are the base unit of fighting--they are the typical way in which we are taught, a specific joint break or throw wrapped up all neat and snug inside an outer layer of strikes. And while they may be the base unit of fighting, injury is the base unit of violence.

Techniques are also seen as a specific answer to a specific problem, as in, "If he does X, I'll use technique X+1." The specific problem here, of course, is that the only specific in violence is, again, injury. Matching technique for technique may work in the ring, but it doesn't mean a damn thing to a serial killer.

You've seen us prop up the straw man of technique and set him ablaze on many occasions, but is he really as worthless as we make him sound? No--techniques are not as bad as we make them out to be; they have their uses in the training cycle, just not at the beginning.

A typical technique involves striking several targets to cause injury and set up favorable conditions for one or more joint breaks and perhaps a throw followed by one or two additional targets once he's down.

In theory, this gives the practitioner a framework within which to experience an advanced joint break/throw combo; in practice, the combo tends to vanish from the practitioner's repertoire, never to be seen again.

Why?

Because they learn the joint break/throw in a context that they never see again. Without the specific preconditions for the technique, they never travel down that branch of the decision tree.

They can always 'force it', e.g., when someone says, "Hey, remember that one throw?" they can reproduce it, but it will never come out spontaneously in free fight. And that means it is lost to them in actual violence.

This is why the assembly process (teaching a single target and illustrating how to get to it and wreck it from multiple angles) is superior to learning techniques.

Does this mean techniques are worthless, or even detrimental?

No.

It just means that techniques are suboptimal for training the uninitiated; for the more advanced practitioner, however, they're a gold mine and crucible rolled into one. When used properly in the training cycle, techniques allow you to mint your own gold bricks as you will. And then hit people in the head with them.

Once you've learned and mastered the bulk of the targets on the human body, as well as rudimentary joint breaking and the basics that underlie throwing (drop and hip throws), you're ready for techniques. Once you reach this point you know how to injure people--reliably, permanently, and without hesitation--but your efficiency is wanting.

Rhythm and timing are the names of your personal hobgoblins and technique is the chain with which you will make them your servants.

Techniques, as practiced by those well steeped in the basics, give you a framework within which to hammer out specific problems in rhythm and timing. It's not the break or the throw or even the striking sequence that is novel--it's purely how they're interrelated and how to pull off the rhythm and timing required to execute it all flawlessly, with little effort.

Therefore, techniques are a professionalizing tool. They are only useful at the top end, and worthless at the bottom. Techniques should only ever be used to teach rhythm and timing--not targets, joint breaks or throws. These must be mastered on their own, stripped of any context save injury. Only then will techniques be illuminating instead of confounding.

Labels: fighting techniques, striking targes